[address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue May 2 11:17:25 CEST 2006
Perhaps someone can clear up my understanding on the ETNO question. Torunn Narvestad <tna at telenor.net> wrote on 30/04/2006 19:44:35: > I do not at all support this policy proposal. > >And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy > >WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the > >reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this > >proposal". According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has falsely claimed unanimous support among its members? Or has Telenor changed its mind? Earlier Per Heldal asked: >Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE >community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more >than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to >represent. Again, perhaps I misunderstand how RIPE works. Per refers to ETNO's vote but I thought that ETNO had no vote at all in RIPE working groups. My understanding was that individuals have a vote, not organizations. Have I misunderstood something here? --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]